AMRAT RAM AND ANR. Vs. DINESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Amrat Ram and Rajesh challenging the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the learned District Judge accepted the application filed by the respondent Dinesh Chandra under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and passed an injunction against the appellants not to interfere in the possession of the respondent and not to transfer or alienate the property to anybody till the pendency of the suit.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the plaintiff respondent Dinesh Chandra filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondents pleading therein that an agreement to sell agricultural land of Araji No. 822 (Rakba 1.6 Hectares] and Araji No. 825 (Rakba 0.04 Hectares) was executed by the defendant No. 1 Amrat Ram and his mother Mst. Bhoori Bai on 1.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the part payment towards the sale agreement was made on the very same day and the remaining amount was promised to be paid within three months. The parties agreed to register the document upon complete payment being made. Mst. Bhoori Bai expired and in her place, the land was entered in the name of her another son Rajesh. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 did not stand by his part of the contract and accordingly the earlier agreement was altered and another agreement dated 17.5.2000 was prepared and further amount of 45,000/- was received by the petitioner defendant No. 1 and sale deed was executed. It is further alleged that on the very same day the possession of Araji Nos. 822 and 825 was handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the land in question. It was pleaded in the plaint that despite repeated requests to register the document, the defendants failed to do so and started interfering trouble in the plaintiffs possession. An application for temporary injunction was moved along with the suit praying that the defendants should be restrained from alienating or transferring the property in any fashion during the pendency of the main suit. The defendants appeared in the suit ana contested the proceedings by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that no agreement was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff. The two agreements on the basis whereof the suit was filed were denied specifically. It was also pleaded that the defendants were in possession of the field right since their birth and wed cultivating the same. A specific plea was also raised that if at all any agreement was executed by the mother of the defendant in the year 2000 then the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge by the order dated 13.2.2013 passed an injunction order in favour of the plaintiff an directed that the defendants shall not mortgage alienate, gift or transfer the property by any means and shall also not interfere in the plaintiffs use an enjoyment of the suit property. They shall also not eject the plaintiff from suit property and shall maintain the status quo thereof. The defendants appellant have approached this Court by way of this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through impugned order.